Tuesday, March 18, 2014

I respect Angry Joe, but his Titanfall review was severely flawed.

The video that sparked this post is the "Angry Joe Titanfall Review."

I do not, personally, have anything against Angry Joe.  He has a large fanbase and obviously he is good at what he does or he wouldn't be there.  I will admit that I am not a regular watcher of his content, but when something does pop up of his I do not have any difficult watching it.  As an entertainer he does a very good job in my opinion.

Where I take issue with Angry Joe is in how he seems to review games.  In this instance I am referring to his Titanfall review.  I am not trying to defend the reviews that it did get or even shit on the review that Angry Joe did.  If he feels the game deserves a 7/10 then that is his opinion and I will not knock his opinion.  I will however question his methodology for how he goes about doing his reviews considering it seems to be flawed in such a big way.

Long story short Angry Joe seems to go into a game review with a preconceived notion of what he wants to play and then reviews the game that way rather than reviewing the content that is actually there.  The way it should be done is obviously the latter.

What I am saying it that I think it is a bit flawed to review a multiplayer only game and then criticize it for the lack of a campaign.  Joe, I would assume, went out and knowing bought the game with the understanding that it was not going to be a single player game.  It was well documented that Titanfall relied heavily on dedicated servers.  So when almost half of his 34:00 review is spent focusing on the campaign, or lack there of, it sort of tells me that he is focusing on something the game was absolutely never intended to be.  One of his gripes was that the campaign seems meaningless because the outcome is the same for the battle whether you lose or crush the other team.  That is completely fair.  It does seem a little strange, but that campaign isn't really there to give you a cinematic experience like other shooters.  It is pretty much only there to give you a quick glimpse into the story of why the hell these two factions are fighting one another.  Respawn never really pretended it was supposed to be anything except that.  Unless I have missed a major announcement from them I suppose.

Some of his other lighter criticisms of the game were that there is a lack of gun customization, titan customization and the most odd was the lack of destructible environments.  Sure, destructible environments would have been cool, but you certainly cannot fault any game for not having that can you? It seems like any criticism for not having that is a bit unfair and only stems from some preconceived notion that games need to have this as a feature which is completely unfair.

I have always found reviews that penalize games for what is not there a little strange.  There is no checklist of things that a game needs to have in order for it to get reviewed a certain way.  If a game lacks something it doesn't necessarily mean that it deserves to be penalized does it?  Does every single game need to have gun customization? Destructible environments? Single player campaign?  I certainly do not think so.
Granted, this is all my opinion against his.  I have no trouble admitting that.  My issue mainly comes from the obvious part of his review that he doesn't really even try to hide.  Angry Joe was looking for a hybrid game between Call of Duty and Battlefield.  Titanfall was graded on how well it filled that role for him and that is a really flawed way to review a game.  Games should not be graded on how well they fit into a precut hole.  They should be graded on the hole they cutout on their own.

Titanfall is not Call of Duty.  Titanfall is not Battlefield.  It is its own game trying to do its own thing.  People reviewing it on the features it doesn't have compared to the other do are reviewing the game in a rather flawed way.  That is all I am saying.



Post a Comment